Then why'd they lose?:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikosemmek
Printable View
Then why'd they lose?:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikosemmek
Macedons and Carthaginians underdogs? One conquered other nations, defeated one of the greatest empires in the ancient world and created one itself, basically the same as the romans did... and the other one also was a powerfull nation with lots of capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
Not enough troops?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Tell that to hannibalQuote:
Originally Posted by Palasta
Then I guess they're not the "sh*t"
They're just "sh*t".
Yeah, but Romans were ones who constantly trumpeted their own "honesty" out loud, which makes it twice as bad. As for example, standard roman procedure in many bad situations was to sign unfavorable peace (thus saving the troops), regroup, and then discard that peace, blaming anything on some single person... That happened in Caudine Forks, in Numantia, in Numidia, to name a few - and no doubt in many other smaller episodes. And constant backstabbing of their own allies? And the whole 3rd Punic war prologue... utterly disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Not to say that the whole roman concept of "just war" is absolutely laughable.
In fact, "Athenian yoke" wasn't a joke. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Just read Thucydides and Xenophontis.
Who didn't and who wouldn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lgk
They lost because political complications within their senate denied Hannibal access to Carthage's full military potential. Hannibal received no reinforcements from Carthage by way of sea while he rampaged throughout the Roman peninsula. He was also denied the thousand-strong Sacred Band cavalry, which were well within their power to tip the tide of Zama. One of the main factors, if not _the_ main factor in Hannibal's loss to Scipio was the service of Numidia's cavalry to Rome. Had Hannibal received seige equipment or additional men during his time in Roman heartlands, he'd have probably ended the empire then and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Luckily for Rome, Carthage had a working senate with actual differing factions at that point.
Also, Carthage being "the sh*t" has nothing to do with them winning or losing wars. I like their mythology and child sacrifice. I hate children. Every time an kid annoys me I think to myself about tossing him into a chasm. I then smile and quietly walk away. They probably sacrificed retarded, handicapped, mishapen, disorderly kids. You know, kids the Spartans would throw away.
A lot of other people of the same era. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero
Because they were short of just one another Hannibal. ;) They only needed to send the second guy either into Iberia or Sicilia to fix things there (hell, they could even just leave him in Africa, judging by Hannibal's own efficient post-war rule of Carthage) - and that would be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
I'd probably say the reason I'm not fond of the Roman empire is that they destroyed and enslaved so many different Cultures. That is just something that really bothers me, screwing with other peoples beliefs and Culture really annoys me for some reason; maybe its the fact that Celtic Culture has been kicked in the nuts so many times and that Celtic Culture is apparently the wrong way to live.
Those "inferior" cultures were then replaced with Roman laws, language and Religion.
Then again this is my biased opinion because of what they did to the Gauls, Britons and all Celtic peoples.
I think the world would be better if Brennus had just killed off the Romans after he sacked Rome in 390 B.C.
But pay me no mind:P
That's a massive oversimplification. The Barcid faction held a majority of votes in the Senate at least until Scipio landed in Africa; they did send Hannibal reinforcements by sea--not on the scale he needed or wanted, but that was due to factors neither Hannibal nor the Senate could control, chiefly due to Hasdrubal Barca being defeated on the Ebro a few months only after Cannae, so that the second shipment of reinforcements which had been scheduled for the summer of 215 BCE was sent to Spain instead. Despite their Spanish setbacks, they also shipped large expeditionary forces to both Sicily and Sardinia. The Carthagianian war effort in the years following Cannae was incredible, if we follow Serge Lancel's analysis then it was more intensive that at any time before in the city's (known) history, not even when Agathokles threatened her very walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikosemmek
Also, claiming Hannibal would have ended Rome there and then is misjudging his intentions. He meant to reverse the situation created by the First Punic War, and (as he declared to Italic prisoners) restore his city's dignitas and imperium--her prestige and her power. Carthage was not the expansionistic, imperialistic power Rome was; even the most aggressive of the Barcids and their supporters simply wanted Carthage to hold the first place among the states of the Mediterranean. Hannibal didn't set out with the intention of conquering Rome, but of humbling her and removing her as a threat to Carthage. His political project appears to have been the creation of an Italic federation in Southern Italy, as a check to Roman power and expansion; Capua was probably meant to be the chief city of this confederation, or at least Hannibal accepted that this would have to be the case when he was there. Ultimately, Hannibal desired to safeguard Carthaginian interests by treaty, a policy Carthage had successfully followed for almost three centuries when Roman perjury had first imperiled this system. Hannibal may have regreted not attempting to force destiny after Cannae, when he led a raid to the foot of Rome's walls in 211BCE; but by then it was to late.
You also appear to underestimate the difficulties of naval operations for the Carthies during the Second Punic War. The Romans had far more ships, especially the era's line-of-battle ships--quinqueremes/pentereis. They had massive numerical superiority whenever their fleets sailed against Carthaginian fleets, despite keeping a powerful squadron in the Adriatic at all times. Yet, and this is a powerful testimony to the skill of their sailors and admirals, the Carthaginians managed several times to raid the Roman coast, attack undefended convoys of supplies sailing to Spain, and even land troops behind enemy lines. They could do this and escape back to friendly waters, because their ships were more skillfully constructed, their rowers better trained, and their captains better navigators. But when they faced the Roman fleets in battle, their lack of numbers told against them; the Carthaginian squadron in Spain was destroyed at the mouth of the Ebro, where it faced hopeless odds. Also, I'd like to add that, even if it is eclipsed in history books by his ignominious defeat on land and early death, Mago Barca's sailing from Ibiza to Liguria, in a straight line and in record time, was an amazing feat of navigation.
Indeed. Carthage was more politically fragmented than Rome at this point; despite having a majority of the Senate, and a preponderance in the popular assembly, the Barcids faced greater opposition than the Roman warmongers. Perhaps if they had been able to better prepare the war beforehand, instead of having Carthage mobilise fully two years after Rome, then they would have been able to win despite the odds.Quote:
Luckily for Rome, Carthage had a working senate with actual differing factions at that point.
Well, there are some scholars who deny that the Carthaginians actually sacrificed live kids, and instead view the tophet and the skeletons of burned infants as evidence of some kind of ritual to allow babies who were stillborn or who died very young (perhaps before they were named) to have an afterlife. The main proponent of this school of thought among archaelogists was Sabatino Moscati. The most convincing argument against child sacrifice is the extreme rarity of infants in the Carthaginian necropolis, although studies of nearby cities from the Roman period indicate very high infantile mortality and a high proportion of still births (or of cases where both the mother and the child die during labour); this infantile mortality cannot plausibly have been much lower in Punic Carthage.Quote:
Also, Carthage being "the sh*t" has nothing to do with them winning or losing wars. I like their mythology and child sacrifice. I hate children. Every time an kid annoys me I think to myself about tossing him into a chasm. I then smile and quietly walk away. They probably sacrificed retarded, handicapped, mishapen, disorderly kids. You know, kids the Spartans would throw away.
Nevertheless, I don't buy all of Moscati's argumentation. Some of the skeletons found in the tophet of Carthage were as old as four, and in some later-era vases we find the skeletons of more than one child--sometimes as many as three, although in those cases two of them are always twins. Some scholars (e.g. S. Lancel, 1992) have concluded from this that, in cases where the god was "robbed" of a promised sacrifice by a still birth, a live child was sacrificed instead. Moreover, the finding of vases which contain the remains of infant animals, rather than humans, point to a sacrifice by substitution (molkomor rather than molk). That said, it is still likely that the majority of the infants found in the tophet were dead of natural causes or were very likely to die of natural causes (in which case, as you've pointed out, the Spartans or even the Romans themselves would have culled them anyway).
Another consideration: the Carthaginians seem to have sacrificed infants, when the need was great. But, based on the skeletons' positions, these infants were dead when their bodies were burned. In similarly exceptional circumstances, the Romans sometimes buried adults alive.
For the same reason people prefer Pirates to the British Navy: puerile romanticism...
.
This! ~DQuote:
What does everyone have against Rome?
https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/35...royspqrvi0.jpg
They looked for it! Out of the blue they blockaded my ports. I kindly asked them not to but they muttered about mock philosophies and war not waiting etcetera. Then I took a few towns, crashed a few columns, slaughtered and raped a few thousand citizens and most graciously got them under my protection. But would they behave themselves? :no: Worst of all, you know what? They had WMD! ~:pissed:
.
I don't know if I believe that. What evidence have we that Hannibal did not intend to simply put Rome out completely? I am aware that Carthage solved its problems more civilly than the Romans did for quite a while, but I don't think they'd have taken Rome as just any other threat they've faced. Were I a senator during that time I'd probably have been the most disgusting war-monger in the Carthaginian government, because Rome has by far and large trumped and outdone any other enemy that Carthage had ever faced. I'd have regarded them as medical practicioners regard cancer today, and would have tried my best to make sure they are never heard from again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
However, I did do once during my olde vanilla days what you described to be Hannibal's true intentions, and I found it amusing that I ran into this picture randomly today.
https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/...govictaqr7.jpg
Cheers!
1. Some people are jealous as Romans accomplished more than their "favorite faction".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
2. Some people are still bitter that their probable ancestors were conquered by the Romans.
3. Some people think that Romans are overrepresented over the other late ancient peoples in the mainstream history. (I kind of suspect that most EB modders belongs to that category...)
4. Some people are snobbish and hate anything popular.
add:
5. Some people always side strongly with the underdogs as a matter of principle. Thus they also likely more or less hate Romans. (But they should remember that Romans were underdogs too...)
The problem with piecing together Hannibal's intentions is that most of what we have on him is third-hand and from a Roman or, at best, Greek viewpoint. He had an official historian with him, Silenos, whose works must have told an official Carthaginian (or, perhaps more accurately, Barcid) version of the campaign, but his works are lost, as are those of historians who used Silenos as a primary source, e.g. Coelius Antipater, of whom only some rare fragments survive. Livy drew extensively on Coelius Antipater (among other sources such as Fabius Pictor), but that means that he gives, at best, a third-hand account distorted by the interpretation of two different Romans, not to mention Livy's habitual embroidery and his lack of general knowledge, especially geography, which makes his work at times incoherent and almost incomprehensible (for instance his chronology of the events leading up to the Second Punic War). Hannibal also left a bronze stele at Cape Taenarion (IIRC), but this was destroyed and we only know of the details he gives of his army's size and composition, thanks to Polybius. We also have copies of some of the treaties he signed, notably the one with Philip V of Macedon; and the sometimes awkward phrase construction in Polybius tends to indicate that he was translating from the Punic version of this treaty, rather than copying down the Greek one, IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikosemmek
So, there must always be some doubts as to Hannibal's intentions, his character and even some of his actions. I must say I rather agree with you when you say that, had you been a contemporary of Hannibal, you would of stood for the utter destruction of Rome. But we have the benefit of hindsight, and it's difficult, if not impossible, for us to make abstraction of later events, especially the "Third Punic War"--or should we be saying the Punic Genocide?
However, from what we know, the most likely conclusion is that Hannibal had not intention of destorying Rome. He left his heavy siege materiel in Iberia; perhaps he was intending to have it brought to him later, but at any rate, he did not anticipate having to capture important cities as soon as he reached Italy. He didn't attack Rome until it was to late, and when he did, only with the intention of drawing Roman forces away from Capua and preventing that city's fall (in which he failed). Now, there were valid military objections to a march on Rome, and they are the same at the time of Cannae and at the time of Trasimene, namely that Hannibal lacked heavy siege equipment and the manpower to seize Rome, which was already a huge and well-fortified city; and that, if a prolonged siege was allowed to turn the war into one of positions and fortifications, then all of Hannibal's advantages would be negated and he would certainly succumb to superior Roman numbers. However, a bold attack on Rome, relying on surprise to storm the city, might have succeeded, especially after Cannae. It would have been a risky enterprise, effectively betting the outcome of the war on a single action. But the capture of Rome and her Senators, the liberation of most the allied hostages would have allowed Hannibal to achieve a total victory. This he did not seek to do, perhaps out of caution. The famous Maharbal quote is probably apocryphal, as are so many of the speeches in Livy; but nevertheless, after Cannae Hannibal had his best chance to take Rome.
The main obstacle to assuming that only prudence prevented a Punic attack on Rome, is that there is no evidence for Hannibal to have planned to besiege the city in the future. In fact, from what we know of Mago Barca's report to the Carthaginian senate, the requests he put in for reinforcements are consistent only with a continuation of the mobile warfare, in the open country, which Hannibal had practised so far. The first shipment was to consist only of elephants and cavalry; the second of infantry, cavalry and more elephants, but not (as far as we know) siege weapons. Moreover, rather than concentrating on a single theater, the Carthaginian policy was to open new fronts (in Sardinia and in Sicily), their goal being apparently to defeat the Romans in all their overseas possessions rather than striking at the heart.
Then, there is Hannibal's policy in Southern Italy. He reportedly told the Capuans he would make their city the capital of Italy; he worked to detach cities from the Roman alliance, even though many of them probably stayed loyal to Rome on account of their hostages more than any other factor, at least at the start when Hannibal appeared invincible. He strove to build a strong, anti-Roman, alliance in Southern Italy, and he never mentioned join operations in Italy during his dealings with the Macedonians. He behaved generally more as a liberator than as a conqueror.
Finally, there are the speeches of Hannibal to his prisoners, claiming that he waged, not a war of extermination, but one to restore his homeland's prestige; and his offer to sell his prisoners back to the Romans. This is told by non-Punic and non-contemporary historians, so the usual grain of salt applies; but it at least tells us what the ancient tradition was.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
However, I did do once during my olde vanilla days what you described to be Hannibal's true intentions, and I found it amusing that I ran into this picture randomly today.
https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/...govictaqr7.jpg
Cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
I'm sorry but there was no such thing like a "Punic Genocide". Only the few people who stayed in Carthage fell victim to the Roman massacre. Carthage was refounded with still major punic population and the other punic towns on the northern african coast weren't even touched. they even kept their autonomie, a switch to roman names only occurs during the 1st century BC to AD, inscriptionas are in punic and latin throughout most of Roman history. Septimius of Lepcis became emperor and his ancestors were senators and they all spoke punic (actually the family only changed their punic name around the time of Augustus as Birley suggests)
So there was hardly a punic genocide
just on a sidenote
As far as gameplay is concerned Rome bothers me. They have it to easy, take to much and spam out armies like there's no tomorrow. By the time I get near central Europe they have nicked more than their fare share, leaving me with a lack of cultural diversity to war against. So I have taken the extreme measure of becoming Romes jailers, by blocking one of the bridges at the north end of Italy.
I have done this in a Seleukid and Mak campaign, and have to fight a large bridge battle every 2 turns or so for my trouble, using a modest blocking force. But at least Rome can exsist to train my troops and Generals. I'm so generous to regale them with the honour.
And yes I'm aware that the situation could easily be reversed for the Roman player, to go east, and find the Grey death in charge of some major real estate. But it's not a dead cert, whereas Romes greed in my experience seems to be a matter of course.
Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by delablake
I never said they succeeded. Jews still exist, Armenians still exist, hell, there's even a residual population of indigenous American tribes. Cato's party in the Roman Senate did try to erase all traces of Carthage (the city was refounded by Augustus more than a century and half later, which has no relevance to actions in the time of Scipio Aemilianus). Despite the tradition of the libri punicihaving been given to the sons of Massinissa, the only traces of Punic scholarship that have survived are fragments of Mago's treaty on agronomy, which proved to be so useful the Romans just had to translate it; in all likelyhood the Romans probably destroyed most of Carthage's libraries. As to the Punic language surviving into the times of Saint Augustine, that's largely due to its entrenchment among the native 'Libyan' population. The letters of the Tiffinagh script, still occasionally used today, are derived from Punic letters, a testimony to the resilience of Punic culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
because their settlements never revolt when they're the AI
and im still bitter about a battle where 2 urban cohorts slaughtered 90% of my army, and how they were immune to missile fire
(all in the unmodded version ofcourse)
Ah, good old vanilla :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
As Rome i used armies with urban cohorts, praetorians, wardogs, ninjas and gladiators. Gladiators were pretty cool :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottweiler
And here we have the most perfect explanation for our irrational hatred of the Roman Faction (not me, I'm a roman buff and have been recently tattooed with Latin inscriptions)
Underdog syndrome - the love of that which strives to excel under harsh conditions, and a disdain for an agent of the exact opposite, the 'overdog'
And just to set the record straight - luck? Come off it sunshine, they survived and thrived because of one simple fact - they learned and adapted.
Ovid - it is right to learn, even from the enemy
If you fight one losing battle in EB that you dont learn from, you truly have lost the battle